Trumps recent speech at Davos

xbacksideslider said:
Ya got nuthin . . . . Again. Just “Kill the messenger.”

Answer the questions, or at least ask yourself those questions. They are honest and practical and point to real obstacles.

Follow the grant money. Folllow the subsidies. There IS fake science involved - not all of, just some of it.

Follow the carbon credits - money.

The hogs of Wall Street and City of London have had their snouts in the trough for decades - the fix is on.

The Third World impact is racist
The First World impact is classist.

It amazes me how easily so many buy into a very expensive and disruptive vaguery that empowers the state and limits liberty - at the expense of the common man and to the benefit of the elites.
Click to expand...

I'm not here to answer your questions. Don't be smug, it detracts from your message.

You seem to have a very high opinion of yourself perhaps you could put that big brain to use and find some answers on your own. While you're at it, why not dig up some evidence for your own crackpot conspiracy theories?

Please, lead us to the truth enlightened one!
 
As I understand it CO2 is stored in trees and other plants until they decompose or are burned. The same is true of oil, coal and natural gas, doing little atmospheric harm as long as it's left alone. Up until about or a little after the beginning of the nineteenth century there were less than one billion people on the planet, and they were not using much if any fossil fuel.

Now two hundred years later we'r using wood and wood products as fast as we can grow trees and digging and pumping fossil fuels out of the ground and burning it as fast as possible. That CO2 that was burred in the earth is for millions of years is now, specially in the last hundred years, being burned and released into the atmosphere by the Seven Billion people now on the planet as fast as we can get it. All I'm saying is things are different now than they were two thousand or even two hundred years ago.
 
texasSlick said:
Yes, the last century has been the warmest on record ..... but face it, the records only go back to the dawn of the industrial revolution. We have anecdotal records that suggest the earth in recent times was at least as warm as now ... example, Vikings settled in Greenland circa 800 -900, they found the land plush and green, hence its name. They abandoned their settlement there circa 1100 when it become too inhabitable for grazing sheep. Example, the Romans grew olives in Britain circa 200-300.

Slick
Click to expand...

This is a good example of regional climate change, not global warming.
 
I do know I’m glad I live on Foundry Hill in our little town , I’m about 440ft above sea level , the original part of Town , read commercial area and the 200 yr old stately homes ,buildings and Churches are all built on the low flat ground on either side of the Salmon River .... in my life time ,the lower end of Town has been completely flooded by the River cresting the dykes , in what is/was ruled a 100 year event 7 times since ‘72 , my Mom who was born and died here first saw the River crest the dykes on St. Valentines Day 1972 .... even with the millions of $ which has been spent on mitagaion since then ,the River has continued to jump the Dykes 7 times .... something has changed for sure and it not just the clear cutting in the high land (watershed of Salmon River) that has turned the River into a glorified drainage ditch ...
 
texasSlick said:
No, as I stated above, IMO man's contribution to global warming is minuscule in comparison to natural forces, and the efforts to stem CO2 are minuscule in comparison to the global production of CO2.

With regard to CO2, the only thing we can be certain of is this .... if you introduce CO2 (or any polar gas) into a glass box with a lid on it, and with a source of radiation impinging on the box, the temperature in the box increases.
As I stated above, more and more scientists are questioning the validity of the glass box model to model the earth's atmosphere. I read a paper recently (published by 3 MIT scientists .... not a shabby institution) which flatly stated the atmospheric temperature of a planet is not dependent on polar (greenhouse) gasses, but on the pressure of the atmosphere.

IMO, the decrease in the rate of warming in the past several decades is due to natural forces. I do not think there is anyone on the planet that can offer proof of this, or otherwise!

Slick
Click to expand...
Then how do you explain that every time we fire a rocket up into space we blow & burn a hole in the ozone layer the size of Texas? Or why we had to ban aerosol cans that were powered by a ozone destroying gas? This layer is vital ( and it is very thin) in keeping the suns Ray's out and warming up the planet.
 
Last edited:
NPeteN said:
I'm not here to answer your questions. Don't be smug, it detracts from your message.

You seem to have a very high opinion of yourself perhaps you could put that big brain to use and find some answers on your own. While you're at it, why not dig up some evidence for your own crackpot conspiracy theories?

Please, lead us to the truth enlightened one!
Click to expand...


Name calling and evasion; no content. No real contribution to the conversation.

What about the racist and classist consequences of massive reduction of CO2 ?

What about the poverty perpetuated by denying fossil fuels to 6 billion in the Third World?

What about the elitism and class antagonism of the entitled green governmental “ haves” versus the disentitled “ energy “have nots” that energy regulation necessarily includes?
 
rweb said:
As I understand it CO2 is stored in trees and other plants until they decompose or are burned. The same is true of oil, coal and natural gas, doing little atmospheric harm as long as it's left alone. Up until about or a little after the beginning of the nineteenth century there were less than one billion people on the planet, and they were not using much if any fossil fuel.

Now two hundred years later we'r using wood and wood products as fast as we can grow trees and digging and pumping fossil fuels out of the ground and burning it as fast as possible. That CO2 that was burred in the earth is for millions of years is now, specially in the last hundred years, being burned and released into the atmosphere by the Seven Billion people now on the planet as fast as we can get it. All I'm saying is things are different now than they were two thousand or even two hundred years ago.
Click to expand...
Re; "Now two hundred years later we're using wood and wood products as fast as we can grow trees"

Mankind has been burning wood ever since he discovered fire, which must be at least 2,500 years and that is a conservative guess. (Probably 3-4 times longer) England was once upon a time covered in trees as were parts of N America and elsewhere– nearly all have been chopped down to make houses, boats, ships, cooking pots firewood etc. you are right the amount of CO2 that mankind has pumped into the atmosphere has created smog that would in some places last for days, in part killing their own kind because of breathing difficulty's - which is the reason why some country's ban the use of coal ( like the city's of the UK) as a domestic fuel. but as everyone wants a heated home in winter even more fuel like gas gets burned, it might be cleaner burning, but at what cost to the environment ?
 
I a calling BS on the US having less trees no than 1900. the below is from here.
https://www.tentree.com/blogs/posts/fact-check-are-there-really-more-trees-today-than-100-years-ago


But overall, the U.S. has 8% of the total forests in the world, and reached a point in 1997 where growth “exceeded harvest by 42%” and we were growing forests at a rate of roughly four times faster than we were in 1920, when our chop-happiness began to level out due to environmental and recreational concerns regarding timber harvest.

The total tree gains have been most heavily concentrated on America’s eastern coast, where trees have doubled in the last 70 years. The eastern shore was home to the most aggressive timber harvests after hit by waves of arriving European settlers in the 17th Century.
 
Bernhard said:
Re; "Now two hundred years later we're using wood and wood products as fast as we can grow trees"

Mankind has been burning wood ever since he discovered fire, which must be at least 2,500 years and that is a conservative guess. (Probably 3-4 times longer) England was once upon a time covered in trees as were parts of N America and elsewhere– nearly all have been chopped down to make houses, boats, ships, cooking pots firewood etc. you are right the amount of CO2 that mankind has pumped into the atmosphere has created smog that would in some places last for days, in part killing their own kind because of breathing difficulty's - which is the reason why some country's ban the use of coal ( like the city's of the UK) as a domestic fuel. but as everyone wants a heated home in winter even more fuel like gas gets burned, it might be cleaner burning, but at what cost to the environment ?
Click to expand...

The reason for the post that you partially quoted is to point out that human activity as far as energy consumption has changed in the last 200 years. As the population grows more energy will be needed. Some conservation, reducing waste, and development of clean renewable energy sources should be encouraged, not discouraged as our current leadership in this country (US) is doing. I hear the naysayers arguing against any change, change will happen, like it or not. Electric vehicles don't have enough range, batters too expensive or life too short, the grid can't handle the increased demand. This may be true now but we shouldn't assume the technology has maxed out, it hasn't.
 
rweb said:
Electric vehicles don't have enough range, batters too expensive or life too short, the grid can't handle the increased demand. This may be true now but we shouldn't assume the technology has maxed out, it hasn't.
Click to expand...
I fully agree with your assessment, particularly your last sentence. I fully believe that we (mankind) have to change or we will face a climate catastrophe. What I am saying is that the calls for immediate change are misguided for all the reasons stated previously - I would not categorise myself as a naysayer, I think a less emotional response is needed but change is inevitable. I am seriously considering the new VW electric car as my next 4 wheel vehicle if the claims are correct - 340 mile range, charge to 80% in 2 hours, 7 year battery life etc.
The major problem is that the world economy is tied to the price of oil so the richest and most powerful people will resist a significant change affecting their wealth creation.
As for denying the worlds developing countries the access to energy and infrastructure, a refocus from those developing alternatives, to base their research in those countries would put them front and centre for financial input - it is always sunny in many parts of Africa, why not base the research into solar energy in those countries?
 
As the oceans rise and weather bounces from one extreme to the other, there are less deniers by the day. Seaside cities all over the world are building dikes, dams and seawalls to preclude the coming deluge and flooding.

Trump recently characterized the US economy as a "blue collar boom", citing a 4% increase in wages, but he forgot to incorporate the 3.3% loss to inflation, so .7% is the actual increase. More like a silent fart than a boom. If he isn't outright lying, he's misrepresenting facts and figures to make his tenure look better. Anyone who believes his crap is either deluded or just totally out of touch with reality.
 
This thread is morphing from climate change to other concerns of the world, notably how do we power up planet earth in the foreseeable future?

I think too many try to equate these as the same. With regard to climate change, Nature is in control. With regard to the use and production of energy, we (mankind) are in control, or perhaps, we have let it get out of control.

It is obvious we are using fossil fuels faster than Nature can replenish them. Nuclear is not the answer .... not only is it immoral to be creating wastes that become the problem of generations 25,000 years into the future, no one wants another Fukushima or Chernoble next door, or anywhere in the world for that matter.

Over population of the world is part of the problem. If there were only 1 or 2 billion on the planet, the energy problem would still be there, but it would not be as acute.

IMO, mankind's greatest peril would be a one world government with a few oligarchs in power, who might decide to limit the world's population.

There are no easy answers to powering the planet, but at least our focus there, rather than the climate change money sinkhole (empowering and enriching the globalists), is more likely to benefit mankind.

Slick
 
Eljahara said:
I fully agree with your assessment, particularly your last sentence. I fully believe that we (mankind) have to change or we will face a climate catastrophe. What I am saying is that the calls for immediate change are misguided for all the reasons stated previously - I would not categorise myself as a naysayer, I think a less emotional response is needed but change is inevitable. I am seriously considering the new VW electric car as my next 4 wheel vehicle if the claims are correct - 340 mile range, charge to 80% in 2 hours, 7 year battery life etc. (Quote) after VWs recent scandal on their exhaust emissions, I would be very suspicious on these claims unless they can be proven- I'm just saying
. ..
Click to expand...
 
Slick is correct ..... Mother Nature is the Boss , we can build all the dykes and water protection , mitagation systems we want .... but so far nothing we build can hold back the forces of nature , sort of like Father Time .....
 
Bernhard,
As I said - if the claims are correct.
If not, I am sure another manufacturer will be in the same ball park soon
 
The whole globalisation thing has been very well thought out, however most politicians do not know the system. In any venture, there are four major areas od operational risk - quality, safety, environment and security. For each of those areas, there are International Standards for management system certification which can be implemented by treaty - in effect, free trade agreements. The major risk area is quality which is about repeat business and requires continual improvement. ISO14000 is similar, but about environmental management certifications - if it is called up in the FTAs, it means that consumers can influence the major polluters, by showing preference to those businesses which are certified.
In Australia our government is about neoliberal deregulation, so probably opposes management system certifications on principle. Tony Abbott is a climate change denier and he signed off on our latest FTA with China, the content of which is secret.
 
texasSlick said:
I think too many try to equate these as the same. With regard to climate change, Nature is in control. With regard to the use and production of energy, we (mankind) are in control, or perhaps, we have let it get out of control.
Click to expand...
Slick,
The two are interconnected - cause and effect - the increased use of fossil fuel, particularly coal (China, India, Russia..) puts more CO2 into the atmosphere. Cutting down the worlds CO2 scrubbers (rain forests) at the current rate means nature is unable to respond and remove the CO2 which results in temperature increases and hence climate change. I agree that nuclear has proved not to be the solution and the focus needs to be on finding clean sustainable energy sources but the two issues are definitely not separate. It is bloody complicated though.
Rainforests are being cut down so that there are greater areas for farming - in order to produce food and plant products to meet the demand of increasing populations and also to allow developing countries to generate income. The increased income leads to greater energy requirements and usage and more CO2...and so we go around. We can not deny developing countries the same lifestyle we enjoy but the brains need to help them achieve it in a better way.
 
...and I won't be here to find out what will happen.
Another good thing about old age.
Time to get back to working on the Norton.
 
acotrel said:
In Australia our government is about neoliberal deregulation, so probably opposes management system certifications on principle.
Click to expand...
Al
The overwhelming majority of governments are concerned about 2 things
1. What do they need to do to remain in power
2. What do they need to do to be re-elected next time
The environment might get a look in, amongst many other issues, once every so often. In the U.K. the privatisation of many institutions - especially transport - shows a lack of regard for the environment. I can travel, with my wife, to see family living about 110 miles away in two ways - either the car - taking 2 hours to travel and using about £15 in petrol or on public transport requiring bus/train/tube across London/2nd train/bus taking 4hours and costing £40 each for both my wife and I. Most people therefore use car for convenience and cost - the environmental concerns taking a second place to finance
 
texasSlick said:
I think too many try to equate these as the same. With regard to climate change, Nature is in control.
Click to expand...

Those climate activists/doomsayers/etc seem, as a group, to be unable (or unwilling) to separate two fundamental issues:
1. Climate Change - yes, it is changing and always will, sometimes not for the better (now?), and
2. Man's Affect On The Environment - after many years of close examination of various arguments I have not seen sound scientific proof that man is a measurable cause of these changes. Yes, we should stop large scale forest clearing and reduce our pollution (I don't believe CO2 is a pollutant, by the way) stop our large scale dependance on and careless disposal of plastics and generally demonstrate good stewardship. In some respects I think it is the utmost in arrogance to suggest we are mighty enough to cause substantive change in our environment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top